Among the most cherished hallmarks of American democracy are these: Free and fair elections; the peaceful transfer of power; and the right of the people to independently evaluate and compare the candidates.
That last attribute of the democratic process is out of chronological order and not often discussed. It’s such an ironclad assumption — that we get to choose based on something besides good (or bad) hair — that it’s rarely enunciated. Of course the candidates will tell us who they are and why we should vote for them and not the person standing at the other podium. When it comes to debate, there is no debate.
2020 was the year we questioned, without evidence, the ability of the chief elections officials in our 50 states to deliver free and fair elections. 2021 was the year we lost our collective willingness to endorse the peaceful transfer of power. 2022 is shaping up as the year to duck one’s opponent. The first two problems are still with us, unfortunately, and they’re ultimately the most grievous of these concerns, but the unwillingness to debate is looming large in the rearview mirror.
What’s going on here? According to FiveThirtyEight.com and Bloomberg’s Gregory Giroux, the 2022 cycle has indeed seen fewer debates between candidates for U.S. Senate and various governorships than previous cycles. One likely reason: the falling-into-line effect of the Republican National Committee’s decision to leave the Commission on Presidential Debates — a partner since 1987 — because of alleged bias. Both parties have claimed bias on the commission’s part at one time or another, but Donald Trump’s bombastic presence on the debate stage in 2016 and 2020, followed by his Twitter salvos lambasting the moderators, was surely a factor. Now, if he is the nominee in 2024, he won’t have to be bothered with the harsh scrutiny of the debate stage.
This year, early on, it seemed Republicans were the ones declining to debate Democrats, but one glaring and noteworthy exception has emerged: Arizona, where Democrat Katie Hobbs has thus far declined to debate election-denying Republican Kari Lake for the right to replace term-limited Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican.
In Kern County, it has been Democrats who’ve refused invitations to debate.
Democrat Rudy Salas, stepping away from the state Assembly after 10 years, turned down KGET’s invitation to an Oct. 12 debate with incumbent Republican David Valadao in the 22nd Congressional District race after initially saying he’d participate.
Democrat Melissa Hurtado, defending her 16th State Senate District seat, likewise nixed KGET’s invite for an Oct. 18 debate with Republican challenger David Shepard after originally agreeing to it.
Both notified the debate host at the 11th hour, citing their displeasure with opposition attack ads that have been airing on local television. In both cases the “debates” went on as scheduled, a Republican vs. an empty podium.
Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez, a Democrat running for the 35th Assembly District seat being vacated by Salas, rejected KGET’s invitation to an Oct. 27 debate. Perez — who is facing another Democrat, physician Jasmeet Bains — did not cite a clear, specific reason, but she did send me this unsolicited text Wednesday: “FYI — I’m doing a debate on Channel 23. I don’t trust 17 nor should anyone who isn’t on the take. Just for your information.” I’m not sure, but I may have been insulted.
For the record, Channel 23 has not scheduled a debate between Perez and Bains, according to KERO News Director Veronica Placencia.
Any political candidate worth his, her or their salt ought to be able to weather a negative ad, or a deluge of them. They’re nothing new. Valadao and Shepard, to name two, have been hit with their share.
So why did Salas, Hurtado and Perez cancel? Perez might not want to be cornered about her criminal conflict-of-interest charges from 2020 that were dismissed after she paid fines and participated in community service.
Salas might not want to talk about his allegedly dubious attendance record in the Assembly.
Hurtado might not feel she has anything to gain, given Democrats’ registration advantage over Republicans of almost 20 percentage points in her district. Why throw the ball when you can just keep your head down and run out the clock? I don’t know if that’s her strategy, but I do know that Hurtado has benefited from generous media coverage. I find it a tad ironic that one of her political ads features former KGET political reporter Eytan Wallace, who now works out of Sacramento.
Are my complaints self-serving? I work for the television station that these three veteran politicians stiffed. (I have not moderated or been otherwise involved in any KGET debates.) So, yes, maybe a little, but these debates aren’t exactly “Judge Judy” in terms of ratings. KGET — and every other news outlet that sponsors debates — does so because they’re a public service.
Voters deserve to see and hear the candidates face their opponents and answer questions from informed media in a neutral setting. Advertising mailers and social media campaign posts aren’t reliable sources of balanced information. TV commercials most certainly aren’t. Debates help fill the void, and the trend among politicians to reject them — if that’s what this is — shortchanges voters.
Robert Price is an Emmy-winning reporter-commentator for KGET-TV. His column appears here Sundays; the views expressed are his own. Reach him at rprice661@gmail.com or via Twitter: @stubblebuzz.
